Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (12) ◽  
pp. 1741-1753 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seon Heui Lee ◽  
Dong Hyun Kim ◽  
Sang Woo Lim
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection

scholarly journals Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety Between da Vinci Robotic and Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Zhang ◽  
Xingshun Qi ◽  
Fangfang Yi ◽  
Rongrong Cao ◽  
Guangrong Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Da Vinci ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Alternative Choice ◽  
Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection

Background and Aims: The intersphincteric resection (ISR) is beneficial for saving patients' anus to a large extent and restoring original bowel continuity. Laparoscopic ISR (L-ISR) has its drawbacks, such as two-dimensional images, low motion flexibility, and unstable lens. Recently, da Vinci robotic ISR (R-ISR) is increasingly used worldwide. The purpose of this article is to compare the feasibility, safety, oncological outcomes, and clinical efficacy of R-ISR vs. L-ISR for low rectal cancer.Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched to identify comparative studies of R-ISR vs. L-ISR. Demographic, clinical, and outcome data were extracted. Mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with their corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.Results: Five studies were included. In total, 510 patients were included, of whom 273 underwent R-ISR and 237 L-ISR. Compared with L-ISR, R-ISR has significantly lower estimated intraoperative blood loss (MD = −23.31, 95% CI [−41.98, −4.64], P = 0.01), longer operative time (MD = 51.77, 95% CI [25.68, 77.86], P = 0.0001), hospitalization days (MD = −1.52, 95% CI [−2.10, 0.94], P < 0.00001), and postoperative urinary complications (RR = 0.36, 95% CI [0.16, 0.82], P = 0.02).Conclusions: The potential benefits of R-ISR are considered as a safe and feasible alternative choice for the treatment of low rectal tumors.

scholarly journals Comparation of Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection and Abdominoperineal Resection for Ultra-Low Rectal Cancer Patients - a Retrospective Analysis, and a Meta-analysis of Oncology Outcome

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xianwei Mo ◽  
Wentao Wang ◽  
Haiquan Qin ◽  
Hao Lai ◽  
Zigao Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Abdominoperineal Resection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection

Abstract Purpose The aim of the study is to evaluate the surgical and oncology outcomes between laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection (LISR) and laparoscopic-assisted Abdominoperineal Resection (LARC) for ultra-low rectal cancer patients by using a retrospective analysis, and a meta-analysis of the literature was carried out to further validate the oncology outcome. Patients and methods: Between April 2014 and December 2015, a total of 38 rectal cancer patients who underwent LISR and 41 LARC patients were enrolled in this study. The comparison between the groups was based on clinicopathological characteristics and surgical outcomes. Meta-analysis of published studies, exploring oncology outcome of between LISR and LARC, was carried out using STATA 12.0 software. Results Operating time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complication rates was similar between LISR group and LARC group; Patients undergoing LISR also had a similarly 5-year local recurrence and overall survival rate with LAPR. Meta-analysis showed that five studies, which included a total of 791 patients were final involved for this analysis. Comparing APR, ISR patients obtain similarly 5-years recurrence rate and 5-years survival rate. Conclusion This study suggests that LISR is as technically feasible, safe, and effective as LARC for treating patients with low rectal cancer. Additional high-powered randomized trials are needed to determine whether LISR truly offers any advantages.

Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer

2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (12) ◽  
pp. 2811-2817 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sang Woo Lim ◽  
Jung Wook Huh ◽  
Young Jin Kim ◽  
Hyeong Rok Kim
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document